Displaying items by tag: Sexhttp://baptistnews.com
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:19:54 -0500Joomla! - Open Source Content Managementen-gbRick Warren says church cannot compromise on sexhttp://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/29543-rick-warren-says-church-cannot-compromise-on-sex
http://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/29543-rick-warren-says-church-cannot-compromise-on-sexPurpose Driven Life author Rick Warren told a Vatican audience it is simply untrue that the church must compromise on sexual morality in order to evangelize.

By Bob Allen

Southern Baptist megachurch pastor and Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren urged participants in a Vatican conference on marriage and the family “to never give up and to never give in” on the defense of sexual morality.

“The church cannot be salt and light in a crumbling culture if we cave in to the sexual revolution and if we fail to provide a counterculture witness,” Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., said in the 28th message at the Nov. 17-19 international colloquium on “The Complementarity of Man and Woman.”

“It is a total myth that we must compromise and give up on biblical truth and marriage in order to evangelize,” Warren said. While conventional wisdom says the reason people aren’t coming to church is because Christians are out of touch when it comes to sex, Warren said, “That’s just not true.”

He said 20 years ago he wrote a book called The Purpose Driven Church, with the subtitle, “Growth Without Compromising Your Message and Mission.”

“I think we proved it, said Warren, who last month baptized the 40,000th adult convert at Saddleback Church. “We didn’t compromise, and we didn’t cave in.”

“In the end we have to be merciful to the fallen,” Warren said. “We have to show grace to the struggling. We have to be patient to the doubting, but when God’s word is clear, we must not, we cannot, back up, back down, back off, backslide, or just give in.”

“The church must never be captivated by culture, manipulated by critics, motivated by applause, frustrated by problems, debilitated by distractions or intimidated by evil,” Warren concluded. “We must keep running the race with our eye on the goal, not on those shouting from the sideline. We must be Spirit-led, purpose-driven and mission-focused, so that we cannot be bought, we will not be compromised and we shall not quit until we finish the race.”

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, touched on similar themes in his address to the conference Nov. 18.

“The sexual revolution is not liberation at all, but simply the imposition of a different sort of patriarchy,” Moore contended. “The sexual revolution empowers men to pursue a Darwinian fantasy of the predatory alpha-male, rooted in the values of power, prestige and personal pleasure.”

“Does anyone really believe these things will empower women or children?” Moore asked. “We see the wreckage of sexuality as self-expression all around us, and we will see more yet.”

Owen Strachan, president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said in a Patheosblog Nov. 17 that seeing diverse religious groups rally around the notion of the “complementarity” of the sexes “warms my heart.”

“I often find that CBMW is a lonely voice promoting complementarity, the idea that the sexes fit together and become one as the fulfillment of our distinctiveness,” said Strachan, who also works as assistant professor of Christian theology and church history at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and its Boyce College.

Strachan celebrated a statement by Pope Francis saying “complementarity is at the root of marriage and family.”

“It is refreshing to hear such formulations expressed in public, and by such a public figure,” Strachan said.

“Evangelicals have participated in a major debate over gender roles for some time now,” Strachan said. “Complementarity has become less popular than it once was, and churches are sorely tempted to give up on this biblical doctrine.”

Strachan said “there is no Christian marriage without complementarity.”

“Marriage is defined by God and signified by nature,” he said. “We can try to redefine it, but if a union is to be a marriage, it must be complementary. Union only comes between a man and a woman; children are produced only through a man and a woman.”

Julie Anne Smith, who writes about abusive religious practices at a blog called Spiritual Sounding Board, said she doubts the pontiff is using the word in the same sense that it is used by proponents of biblical patriarchy.

“Pope Francis is in agreement with CBMW’s foundational issues of marriage: that marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife (as opposed to same-sex marriage families),” she observed. “He talks about the cheapening of marriage, and I think most of us can agree that we have seen lack of commitment in couples to stay married when the going gets tough.”

Smith said the CBMW goes beyond that to claim the Bible teaches male headship and wifely submission in the home, lists 83 rules for women in Wayne Grudem’s 2006 book, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism, and in some cases discourages wives from working outside of the home.

“I’ve searched high and low and can find no indication that Pope Francis endorses the extra-biblical rules that define the word complementarity in the same way as Strachan and his friends at CBMW,” she said.

]]>Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren told a Vatican audience it is simply untrue that the church must compromise on sexual morality in order to evangelize.

By Bob Allen

Southern Baptist megachurch pastor and Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren urged participants in a Vatican conference on marriage and the family “to never give up and to never give in” on the defense of sexual morality.

“The church cannot be salt and light in a crumbling culture if we cave in to the sexual revolution and if we fail to provide a counterculture witness,” Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., said in the 28th message at the Nov. 17-19 international colloquium on “The Complementarity of Man and Woman.”

“It is a total myth that we must compromise and give up on biblical truth and marriage in order to evangelize,” Warren said. While conventional wisdom says the reason people aren’t coming to church is because Christians are out of touch when it comes to sex, Warren said, “That’s just not true.”

He said 20 years ago he wrote a book called The Purpose Driven Church, with the subtitle, “Growth Without Compromising Your Message and Mission.”

“I think we proved it, said Warren, who last month baptized the 40,000th adult convert at Saddleback Church. “We didn’t compromise, and we didn’t cave in.”

“In the end we have to be merciful to the fallen,” Warren said. “We have to show grace to the struggling. We have to be patient to the doubting, but when God’s word is clear, we must not, we cannot, back up, back down, back off, backslide, or just give in.”

“The church must never be captivated by culture, manipulated by critics, motivated by applause, frustrated by problems, debilitated by distractions or intimidated by evil,” Warren concluded. “We must keep running the race with our eye on the goal, not on those shouting from the sideline. We must be Spirit-led, purpose-driven and mission-focused, so that we cannot be bought, we will not be compromised and we shall not quit until we finish the race.”

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, touched on similar themes in his address to the conference Nov. 18.

“The sexual revolution is not liberation at all, but simply the imposition of a different sort of patriarchy,” Moore contended. “The sexual revolution empowers men to pursue a Darwinian fantasy of the predatory alpha-male, rooted in the values of power, prestige and personal pleasure.”

“Does anyone really believe these things will empower women or children?” Moore asked. “We see the wreckage of sexuality as self-expression all around us, and we will see more yet.”

Owen Strachan, president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said in a Patheosblog Nov. 17 that seeing diverse religious groups rally around the notion of the “complementarity” of the sexes “warms my heart.”

“I often find that CBMW is a lonely voice promoting complementarity, the idea that the sexes fit together and become one as the fulfillment of our distinctiveness,” said Strachan, who also works as assistant professor of Christian theology and church history at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and its Boyce College.

Strachan celebrated a statement by Pope Francis saying “complementarity is at the root of marriage and family.”

“It is refreshing to hear such formulations expressed in public, and by such a public figure,” Strachan said.

“Evangelicals have participated in a major debate over gender roles for some time now,” Strachan said. “Complementarity has become less popular than it once was, and churches are sorely tempted to give up on this biblical doctrine.”

Strachan said “there is no Christian marriage without complementarity.”

“Marriage is defined by God and signified by nature,” he said. “We can try to redefine it, but if a union is to be a marriage, it must be complementary. Union only comes between a man and a woman; children are produced only through a man and a woman.”

Julie Anne Smith, who writes about abusive religious practices at a blog called Spiritual Sounding Board, said she doubts the pontiff is using the word in the same sense that it is used by proponents of biblical patriarchy.

“Pope Francis is in agreement with CBMW’s foundational issues of marriage: that marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife (as opposed to same-sex marriage families),” she observed. “He talks about the cheapening of marriage, and I think most of us can agree that we have seen lack of commitment in couples to stay married when the going gets tough.”

Smith said the CBMW goes beyond that to claim the Bible teaches male headship and wifely submission in the home, lists 83 rules for women in Wayne Grudem’s 2006 book, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism, and in some cases discourages wives from working outside of the home.

“I’ve searched high and low and can find no indication that Pope Francis endorses the extra-biblical rules that define the word complementarity in the same way as Strachan and his friends at CBMW,” she said.

“Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they stitched fig-leaves together and made themselves loincloths” (Gen. 3:7).

In the beginning: sex. These days we might remember that when so many religio-ethical-theological-judicial debates seem focused thereon. The Hobby Lobby and the same-sex marriage folks didn’t introduce the controversy. Christian history suggests that, try as it might, the Church can’t resolve the flesh/spirit dilemma, past or present.

If I knew enough about Scripture or sex, I might offer a course in Bible Earthiness, just to flesh out (forgive me) the way the writers approached sexual implications/complications from the start. The briefest survey illustrates:

• “At my time of life I am past bearing children, and my husband is old,” says post-menopausal Sarah, laughing her head off at pre-Viagra Abraham when a “stranger” predicts her pending pregnancy (Gen. 18:12).

• “When morning came, it was Leah!” And Jacob learned that even after seven years of premarital labor, you still can’t trust your father-in-law (Gen. 29:25).

• “It is better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor. 7:9), St. Paul wrote, touting his own celibate prowess, reluctantly acceding to the smoldering saints around him.

• “In the kingdom of heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage” (Lk. 20:35), Jesus told the religious leaders taunting him about the apocalyptic status of the woman who married seven brothers, all of whom died. (Why they kept marrying her after the third brother croaked still mystifies me.)

Jesus’ effort to clarify marriage and the kingdom intensified Christians’ speculation on faith and sex as evident in two indigenous American movements, the Shaker and Oneida communities. Both offered new revelations regarding Christ’s return, post-conversion holiness, male/female egalitarianism and the community of goods (Acts 2:44). Anticipating American exceptionalism, they insisted that the U.S. was the apocalyptic epicenter, an impending spiritual realm with biological implications informed by multiple miscarriages borne by their early female-founders. Their approaches to such apocalyptic sexuality, however, were radically dissimilar.

The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing (Shakers) arose from the supernatural revelations of Englishwoman Ann Lee to a small band of “Shaking Quakers” united around her belief — after multiple miscarriages — that sexual intercourse triggered the fall of Adam and Eve, the source of original sin. Lee led the group to New York in 1774 and by 1820 Shaker communities spread from Maine to Kentucky.

Shakers proclaimed that God’s nature encompassed both maleness and femaleness, traits revealed first in Jesus and a “second appearing” in “Mother Ann.” Their communities were thus the avant garde of the kingdom, anticipating humanity’s eschatological future. Membership required confession of sin to male and female elders, renunciation of private property and acceptance of “the cross” of celibacy. (No “marrying” in the kingdom.) Ecstatic worship produced continuing revelations from God, angels and spirits of the departed (spiritualism).

With celibacy as norm, Shaker devotees came from revival converts, sheltered slaves, abused women and orphaned children, some of whom joined the order. Ultimately, nature took its course and membership declined. In 1974 I spent a day with the three remaining Shaker women at Canterbury, N.H. They assured me that the kingdom was still at hand even if the Shakers themselves disappeared.

Converted in the Second Great Awakening, John Humphrey Noyes, founder of the Oneida community, became convinced Jesus had returned in A.D. 70, empowering the truly sanctified to live in this world without sin. Noyes claimed that the kingdom, long unheeded, was established by his communitarian movement in 1847 at Putney, Vt.

Gospel perfectionism convinced Noyes that while Jesus said there was no marriage in the kingdom, he did not say that there was no sex. Noyes’ doctrine of “complex marriage” rejected “exclusive love” of traditional marriage for the freedom of kingdom citizens to engage in sexual relations with other sanctified members. Noyes’ spouse, Harriet, sustained numerous miscarriages, a reality that led him to promote “male continence,” man-accountable birth control that enabled women to enjoy sex without fear of unwanted pregnancy. Childbearing required communal approval, with childrearing facilitated by the most nurturing members.

Forced out of Putney because of these controversial practices, the group moved to Oneida, N.Y., gaining economic security through their metallurgy, particularly manufacturing animal traps. Although sexual encounters were regulated by community policy, Noyes was ultimately charged with varying sexual improprieties, forcing exile to Canada. The members abandoned perfectionist practices and incorporated as Oneida Community, Ltd., in 1879, known today for its stainless dinnerware. Noyes summed up his eschatology and sexuality in the classic line: “At the marriage supper of the Lamb, no dish is exclusive.”

Are the Shakers and Oneidaites bizarre exceptions or intriguing illustrations of the inescapable tensions between flesh and spirit, justification and sanctification, love and desire in the world, the church, and perhaps even the kingdom of God? Amid our own fumbling and fussing over sex and gospel we’d do well to admit that others got there before us — even blessed St. Augustine, whose pre-conversion, post-pubescent, fourth-century confession captured the challenge then and now: “Lord, give me chastity, but not yet.” World without end. Amen.

]]>Christian history suggests the Church just can’t resolve the flesh/spirit dilemma, past or present.

By Bill Leonard

“Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they stitched fig-leaves together and made themselves loincloths” (Gen. 3:7).

In the beginning: sex. These days we might remember that when so many religio-ethical-theological-judicial debates seem focused thereon. The Hobby Lobby and the same-sex marriage folks didn’t introduce the controversy. Christian history suggests that, try as it might, the Church can’t resolve the flesh/spirit dilemma, past or present.

If I knew enough about Scripture or sex, I might offer a course in Bible Earthiness, just to flesh out (forgive me) the way the writers approached sexual implications/complications from the start. The briefest survey illustrates:

• “At my time of life I am past bearing children, and my husband is old,” says post-menopausal Sarah, laughing her head off at pre-Viagra Abraham when a “stranger” predicts her pending pregnancy (Gen. 18:12).

• “When morning came, it was Leah!” And Jacob learned that even after seven years of premarital labor, you still can’t trust your father-in-law (Gen. 29:25).

• “It is better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor. 7:9), St. Paul wrote, touting his own celibate prowess, reluctantly acceding to the smoldering saints around him.

• “In the kingdom of heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage” (Lk. 20:35), Jesus told the religious leaders taunting him about the apocalyptic status of the woman who married seven brothers, all of whom died. (Why they kept marrying her after the third brother croaked still mystifies me.)

Jesus’ effort to clarify marriage and the kingdom intensified Christians’ speculation on faith and sex as evident in two indigenous American movements, the Shaker and Oneida communities. Both offered new revelations regarding Christ’s return, post-conversion holiness, male/female egalitarianism and the community of goods (Acts 2:44). Anticipating American exceptionalism, they insisted that the U.S. was the apocalyptic epicenter, an impending spiritual realm with biological implications informed by multiple miscarriages borne by their early female-founders. Their approaches to such apocalyptic sexuality, however, were radically dissimilar.

The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing (Shakers) arose from the supernatural revelations of Englishwoman Ann Lee to a small band of “Shaking Quakers” united around her belief — after multiple miscarriages — that sexual intercourse triggered the fall of Adam and Eve, the source of original sin. Lee led the group to New York in 1774 and by 1820 Shaker communities spread from Maine to Kentucky.

Shakers proclaimed that God’s nature encompassed both maleness and femaleness, traits revealed first in Jesus and a “second appearing” in “Mother Ann.” Their communities were thus the avant garde of the kingdom, anticipating humanity’s eschatological future. Membership required confession of sin to male and female elders, renunciation of private property and acceptance of “the cross” of celibacy. (No “marrying” in the kingdom.) Ecstatic worship produced continuing revelations from God, angels and spirits of the departed (spiritualism).

With celibacy as norm, Shaker devotees came from revival converts, sheltered slaves, abused women and orphaned children, some of whom joined the order. Ultimately, nature took its course and membership declined. In 1974 I spent a day with the three remaining Shaker women at Canterbury, N.H. They assured me that the kingdom was still at hand even if the Shakers themselves disappeared.

Converted in the Second Great Awakening, John Humphrey Noyes, founder of the Oneida community, became convinced Jesus had returned in A.D. 70, empowering the truly sanctified to live in this world without sin. Noyes claimed that the kingdom, long unheeded, was established by his communitarian movement in 1847 at Putney, Vt.

Gospel perfectionism convinced Noyes that while Jesus said there was no marriage in the kingdom, he did not say that there was no sex. Noyes’ doctrine of “complex marriage” rejected “exclusive love” of traditional marriage for the freedom of kingdom citizens to engage in sexual relations with other sanctified members. Noyes’ spouse, Harriet, sustained numerous miscarriages, a reality that led him to promote “male continence,” man-accountable birth control that enabled women to enjoy sex without fear of unwanted pregnancy. Childbearing required communal approval, with childrearing facilitated by the most nurturing members.

Forced out of Putney because of these controversial practices, the group moved to Oneida, N.Y., gaining economic security through their metallurgy, particularly manufacturing animal traps. Although sexual encounters were regulated by community policy, Noyes was ultimately charged with varying sexual improprieties, forcing exile to Canada. The members abandoned perfectionist practices and incorporated as Oneida Community, Ltd., in 1879, known today for its stainless dinnerware. Noyes summed up his eschatology and sexuality in the classic line: “At the marriage supper of the Lamb, no dish is exclusive.”

Are the Shakers and Oneidaites bizarre exceptions or intriguing illustrations of the inescapable tensions between flesh and spirit, justification and sanctification, love and desire in the world, the church, and perhaps even the kingdom of God? Amid our own fumbling and fussing over sex and gospel we’d do well to admit that others got there before us — even blessed St. Augustine, whose pre-conversion, post-pubescent, fourth-century confession captured the challenge then and now: “Lord, give me chastity, but not yet.” World without end. Amen.

]]>Bill LeonardCan I Get a Witness?Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:58:23 -0400Sexual sin not just problem for men, says woman at Baptist summithttp://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/28613-woman-says-sexual-sin-not-just-problem-for-men
http://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/28613-woman-says-sexual-sin-not-just-problem-for-menWhile most evangelical books and sermons on sexual temptation are geared toward men, women are not immune, according to a speaker at a Southern Baptist sex summit that ended today.

By Bob Allen

When it comes to sexuality, many women are suffering, the lone female plenary speaker at a Southern Baptist summit on sex said during the final session of the three-day gathering.

“Some women are suffering, and some women are struggling,” Trillia Newbell, consultant on women’s initiatives for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention, told about 200 people at the ERLC’s first-ever national leadership conference. It was held April 21-23 at the SBC Executive Committee building in Nashville, Tenn.

Newbell, lead editor of the women’s channel for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in Louisville, Ky., said the idea that men and women are both created in the image God but created different “does indeed affect our sexuality.”

“The fall of man wreaked havoc on what was perfect in this world,” Newbell said. “It specifically affected women and our sexuality.”

“We know in Genesis 3 that the punishment for Eve’s disobedience was that women would have pain in childbearing,” she said. “But we know it doesn’t end there. Women are reminded every four to six weeks of the death and destruction of the fall through our menstrual cycle. There is miscarriage and hormonal imbalance and cancers that attack our organs that produce life and give substance.”

“And then we have the unfortunate reality that because of the sin in this world women are objectified,” she continued. “We objectify ourselves in magazines and through supporting sexually explicit images, and we are objectified by men. This is our reality.”

Newbell said pastors cannot ignore statistics about how many women are victimized by sexual assault and human trafficking. “Your pews may be filled with women who have suffered under the hands of another person, and these women may be too embarrassed to say a word,” she said.

But Newbell added that people often underestimate the impact of pornography on women. She cited one study showing that one in three Americans who click on a pornographic website is a woman. “This is not a male-only issue,” she said.

With growing popularity of female erotica such as Fifty Shades of Grey, she said, “there’s no wonder that many women who are picking up these books are also clicking on the screen.”

Newbell said “there is a stereotype and a really, really bad rumor” that women don’t struggle with sexual sin.

“Or so it appears,” she observed. “Most of the books, sermons and articles addressing sexual temptation are geared toward the man. There is no doubt that men need to hear these things, but so do women.”

She reminded pastors that the Old Testament book of Proverbs is filled with warnings about the “adulterous woman.”

“When great men fall, it is not always because of sexual sin, but so often it’s because of adultery,” Newbell said. “I am not saying it is the woman’s fault. No way. It takes two to tango, but what I am saying is that all Scripture is useful and therefore those texts aren’t meant for only men. They are also meant to teach women, and to warn us of the dangers to be that temptress, that adulterous woman.”

“So don’t forget to warn women about the dangers of sexual sin as well as men,” she advised pastors. “We need to hear the same warning.”

Newbell spoke briefly before Kevin Smith, pastor of Watson Memorial Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky., closed the conference with an address about marital fidelity. Other topics covered in the wide-ranging discussion included pornography, temptation, homosexuality, teaching kids about sex and pastoral care.

]]>While most evangelical books and sermons on sexual temptation are geared toward men, women are not immune, according to a speaker at a Southern Baptist sex summit that ended today.

By Bob Allen

When it comes to sexuality, many women are suffering, the lone female plenary speaker at a Southern Baptist summit on sex said during the final session of the three-day gathering.

“Some women are suffering, and some women are struggling,” Trillia Newbell, consultant on women’s initiatives for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention, told about 200 people at the ERLC’s first-ever national leadership conference. It was held April 21-23 at the SBC Executive Committee building in Nashville, Tenn.

Newbell, lead editor of the women’s channel for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in Louisville, Ky., said the idea that men and women are both created in the image God but created different “does indeed affect our sexuality.”

“The fall of man wreaked havoc on what was perfect in this world,” Newbell said. “It specifically affected women and our sexuality.”

“We know in Genesis 3 that the punishment for Eve’s disobedience was that women would have pain in childbearing,” she said. “But we know it doesn’t end there. Women are reminded every four to six weeks of the death and destruction of the fall through our menstrual cycle. There is miscarriage and hormonal imbalance and cancers that attack our organs that produce life and give substance.”

“And then we have the unfortunate reality that because of the sin in this world women are objectified,” she continued. “We objectify ourselves in magazines and through supporting sexually explicit images, and we are objectified by men. This is our reality.”

Newbell said pastors cannot ignore statistics about how many women are victimized by sexual assault and human trafficking. “Your pews may be filled with women who have suffered under the hands of another person, and these women may be too embarrassed to say a word,” she said.

But Newbell added that people often underestimate the impact of pornography on women. She cited one study showing that one in three Americans who click on a pornographic website is a woman. “This is not a male-only issue,” she said.

With growing popularity of female erotica such as Fifty Shades of Grey, she said, “there’s no wonder that many women who are picking up these books are also clicking on the screen.”

Newbell said “there is a stereotype and a really, really bad rumor” that women don’t struggle with sexual sin.

“Or so it appears,” she observed. “Most of the books, sermons and articles addressing sexual temptation are geared toward the man. There is no doubt that men need to hear these things, but so do women.”

She reminded pastors that the Old Testament book of Proverbs is filled with warnings about the “adulterous woman.”

“When great men fall, it is not always because of sexual sin, but so often it’s because of adultery,” Newbell said. “I am not saying it is the woman’s fault. No way. It takes two to tango, but what I am saying is that all Scripture is useful and therefore those texts aren’t meant for only men. They are also meant to teach women, and to warn us of the dangers to be that temptress, that adulterous woman.”

“So don’t forget to warn women about the dangers of sexual sin as well as men,” she advised pastors. “We need to hear the same warning.”

Newbell spoke briefly before Kevin Smith, pastor of Watson Memorial Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky., closed the conference with an address about marital fidelity. Other topics covered in the wide-ranging discussion included pornography, temptation, homosexuality, teaching kids about sex and pastoral care.

Religious liberty is becoming a casualty of America’s culture wars, a leading expert on the separation of church and state told an audience Nov. 7 at the Newseum in Washington.

“I certainly didn’t predict the last 20 years,” University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock said at a symposium marking the 20th anniversary of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, landmark legislation that made it harder for the government to restrict religious exercise.

“I claim no ability to predict the next 20, but I think this whole debate about sexual morality and religious liberty and the context of sexual morality is turning much of the country against religious liberty, or at least turning much of the country into a view that religious liberty must be interpreted very narrowly,” Laycock said.

Laycock said pitting religion against sex turns many people against religious liberty. He compared religious-liberty views in the United States with those in France, whose law is modeled after the U.S. Constitution’s free-exercise and non-establishment clauses.

“They take a much narrower view of what religious liberty means,” Laycock said. “The biggest reason is because in France religion was on the wrong side of the revolution. In America the churches were on the right side of the revolution.”

Laycock asked the audience to consider the question: “What if we had a new revolution in our time?”

“The sexual revolution that began in earnest in the ’60s carries on with the current front about same-sex marriage and now contraception, which had been a neutral zone for a long time,” he said. “Conservative churches in this country have been consistently on the losing side of that revolution.”

“Like the Catholic Church in France they oppose not just the revolution’s excesses but they oppose its core,” he said.

Laycock said debates over sexual issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, sterilization and emergency contraception all share one thing in common.

“What one side views as a grave evil the other side views as a fundamental human right,” he said. “And for tens of millions of Americans, conservative churches have made themselves the enemies of liberty. And for tens of millions of Americans, what religious liberty now does is empower their enemies, and that, in their view, is a bad thing.”

Laycock said many Americans experience “a growing intuitive reaction” against such discussions.

“They are tired of hearing the Catholic bishops and evangelical preachers and view them as trying to restrict other people’s sex lives,” he said. If that trend in public opinion continues, he said, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act “will be no help.”

“There are people who still believe in the American tradition of live and let live, who still believe in liberty for all,” he said. “But increasingly we are deeply polarized with conservative religious churches on one side, secular activists on the other side, and the moderate/liberal/center churches in between, declining in numbers and mostly keeping their mouth shut and not being actively involved in this debate.”

“That kind of polarization, I think, is a real problem,” he said.

Laycock said the tendency of both sides to insist on a total win — liberty for them and not liberty for the other side — “is a very bad thing for religious liberty.”

“If the people no longer believe in religious liberty, we will lose it,” Laycock said. “And that will be a loss for America, no matter which side of the culture wars you find yourself on.”

Religious liberty is becoming a casualty of America’s culture wars, a leading expert on the separation of church and state told an audience Nov. 7 at the Newseum in Washington.

“I certainly didn’t predict the last 20 years,” University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock said at a symposium marking the 20th anniversary of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, landmark legislation that made it harder for the government to restrict religious exercise.

“I claim no ability to predict the next 20, but I think this whole debate about sexual morality and religious liberty and the context of sexual morality is turning much of the country against religious liberty, or at least turning much of the country into a view that religious liberty must be interpreted very narrowly,” Laycock said.

Laycock said pitting religion against sex turns many people against religious liberty. He compared religious-liberty views in the United States with those in France, whose law is modeled after the U.S. Constitution’s free-exercise and non-establishment clauses.

“They take a much narrower view of what religious liberty means,” Laycock said. “The biggest reason is because in France religion was on the wrong side of the revolution. In America the churches were on the right side of the revolution.”

Laycock asked the audience to consider the question: “What if we had a new revolution in our time?”

“The sexual revolution that began in earnest in the ’60s carries on with the current front about same-sex marriage and now contraception, which had been a neutral zone for a long time,” he said. “Conservative churches in this country have been consistently on the losing side of that revolution.”

“Like the Catholic Church in France they oppose not just the revolution’s excesses but they oppose its core,” he said.

Laycock said debates over sexual issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, sterilization and emergency contraception all share one thing in common.

“What one side views as a grave evil the other side views as a fundamental human right,” he said. “And for tens of millions of Americans, conservative churches have made themselves the enemies of liberty. And for tens of millions of Americans, what religious liberty now does is empower their enemies, and that, in their view, is a bad thing.”

Laycock said many Americans experience “a growing intuitive reaction” against such discussions.

“They are tired of hearing the Catholic bishops and evangelical preachers and view them as trying to restrict other people’s sex lives,” he said. If that trend in public opinion continues, he said, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act “will be no help.”

“There are people who still believe in the American tradition of live and let live, who still believe in liberty for all,” he said. “But increasingly we are deeply polarized with conservative religious churches on one side, secular activists on the other side, and the moderate/liberal/center churches in between, declining in numbers and mostly keeping their mouth shut and not being actively involved in this debate.”

“That kind of polarization, I think, is a real problem,” he said.

Laycock said the tendency of both sides to insist on a total win — liberty for them and not liberty for the other side — “is a very bad thing for religious liberty.”

“If the people no longer believe in religious liberty, we will lose it,” Laycock said. “And that will be a loss for America, no matter which side of the culture wars you find yourself on.”

Dancing is a longstanding part of culture. Through every decade, new styles of dancing emerge. Yet more often than not, the church watches from afar.

We Christians reserve dancing for the privacy of our own homes, or for the occasional wedding. Mesmerized by Dancing With the Stars, we tap our foot to the radio or sing in the shower, but come time for church, we hide that away.

Church and dancing were never frequent bedfellows. One of the biggest culture shocks I received after moving to the South was the Southern Baptist wedding experience. I arrived to the reception, ready to kick off my heels. The only dancers who joined me were under the age of 9. It was not a time for adults to let their hair down.

I’m used to the discomfort now, with people telling me they have no skill or rhythm. I myself am an alum of the sitter club. I used to sit at the table while everyone else shook what their mama gave them in high school.

Back then you had two choices: sit it out, or join in to the oversexualized cha-cha. I knew I looked more like a fool sitting still than getting up and moving it. Yet I felt like that kind of dancing went against some sort of moral code. After a few years I realized that wasn’t dancing, not the kind you enjoy anyway.

These days dancing is my way to wear and spread joy. Yet ever since I became a seminary student, I’ve noticed my calling and passion colliding with each other, with both sides misunderstanding each other.

Lots of Christians I’ve met have an uneasy relationship with dance. But this isn’t just about shyness or bad knees. Because dancing is portrayed in such a sexually explicit manner in high school gyms and in the raunchy music videos, many place dance in the sin category.

Fast forward to Miley Cyrus and we are faced with a one-sided idea of dancing. Children and teenagers view pop stars on TV and aren’t sure what to make of it. The older crowd scratches their heads at VMAs performances (or don’t watch them). We face a world filled with sexuality, and a church terrified of it.

By defining dancing in such a limited way, Christians ignore a vital part of our humanity and allow our culture to define it for us. Culture and church are feeding us two extremes, and most days we choose which one to listen to.

What does this say about our ability to wear joy? When Beyonce performed at the Super Bowl, criticisms from Christians flooded the Internet, claiming her performance was too racy.

Beyonce’s performance radiated confidence, power and self-esteem and empowered me. Here at the ultimate event of male athleticism was a female giving it all she had, and wowing the world.

And the world responded, with a vast majority of Christians threatened by her, interpreting the dance as primarily an expression of sexuality, not joy.

Remember the scene from the 2000 film Chicken Run? The chickens hear a jazzy beat for the first time, and the music gets into their bones. They can’t help it. Soon the whole room is swing dancing and having a ball.

Countless movies have pivotal scenes where a character learns to let go and dance. Hugh Grant in Love Actually suddenly busts a move to the Pointer Sisters to blow off some steam.

Napoleon Dynamite wows us with his routine. Young Frankenstein makes us laugh with “Puttin’ on the Ritz.” And Audrey Hepburn’s dance routine from Funny Face was such a hit that it eventually was used in Gap commercials. And you want to dance along with them.

Dancing is a natural human expression of happiness. In the Bible, dance is a celebratory act. In Exodus 15, Miriam takes a tambourine and dances because the Lord is victorious. In 1 Samuel 18, the women of Israel come out and dance when David returns from defeating the Philistines. And there’s ample more evidence showing dance as a significant, cultural and yes, holy act.

Faith helps us to be the best person we can be. Dance is a way to express happiness and boost our confidence. Two alarmingly similar ideas, yet they live separate lives. Can’t we change that?

]]>Christians need to reclaim the joy of dancing.

By Alice Horner

Dancing is a longstanding part of culture. Through every decade, new styles of dancing emerge. Yet more often than not, the church watches from afar.

We Christians reserve dancing for the privacy of our own homes, or for the occasional wedding. Mesmerized by Dancing With the Stars, we tap our foot to the radio or sing in the shower, but come time for church, we hide that away.

Church and dancing were never frequent bedfellows. One of the biggest culture shocks I received after moving to the South was the Southern Baptist wedding experience. I arrived to the reception, ready to kick off my heels. The only dancers who joined me were under the age of 9. It was not a time for adults to let their hair down.

I’m used to the discomfort now, with people telling me they have no skill or rhythm. I myself am an alum of the sitter club. I used to sit at the table while everyone else shook what their mama gave them in high school.

Back then you had two choices: sit it out, or join in to the oversexualized cha-cha. I knew I looked more like a fool sitting still than getting up and moving it. Yet I felt like that kind of dancing went against some sort of moral code. After a few years I realized that wasn’t dancing, not the kind you enjoy anyway.

These days dancing is my way to wear and spread joy. Yet ever since I became a seminary student, I’ve noticed my calling and passion colliding with each other, with both sides misunderstanding each other.

Lots of Christians I’ve met have an uneasy relationship with dance. But this isn’t just about shyness or bad knees. Because dancing is portrayed in such a sexually explicit manner in high school gyms and in the raunchy music videos, many place dance in the sin category.

Fast forward to Miley Cyrus and we are faced with a one-sided idea of dancing. Children and teenagers view pop stars on TV and aren’t sure what to make of it. The older crowd scratches their heads at VMAs performances (or don’t watch them). We face a world filled with sexuality, and a church terrified of it.

By defining dancing in such a limited way, Christians ignore a vital part of our humanity and allow our culture to define it for us. Culture and church are feeding us two extremes, and most days we choose which one to listen to.

What does this say about our ability to wear joy? When Beyonce performed at the Super Bowl, criticisms from Christians flooded the Internet, claiming her performance was too racy.

Beyonce’s performance radiated confidence, power and self-esteem and empowered me. Here at the ultimate event of male athleticism was a female giving it all she had, and wowing the world.

And the world responded, with a vast majority of Christians threatened by her, interpreting the dance as primarily an expression of sexuality, not joy.

Remember the scene from the 2000 film Chicken Run? The chickens hear a jazzy beat for the first time, and the music gets into their bones. They can’t help it. Soon the whole room is swing dancing and having a ball.

Countless movies have pivotal scenes where a character learns to let go and dance. Hugh Grant in Love Actually suddenly busts a move to the Pointer Sisters to blow off some steam.

Napoleon Dynamite wows us with his routine. Young Frankenstein makes us laugh with “Puttin’ on the Ritz.” And Audrey Hepburn’s dance routine from Funny Face was such a hit that it eventually was used in Gap commercials. And you want to dance along with them.

Dancing is a natural human expression of happiness. In the Bible, dance is a celebratory act. In Exodus 15, Miriam takes a tambourine and dances because the Lord is victorious. In 1 Samuel 18, the women of Israel come out and dance when David returns from defeating the Philistines. And there’s ample more evidence showing dance as a significant, cultural and yes, holy act.

Faith helps us to be the best person we can be. Dance is a way to express happiness and boost our confidence. Two alarmingly similar ideas, yet they live separate lives. Can’t we change that?

]]>Alice HornerCommentariesTue, 22 Oct 2013 09:44:40 -0400The birds, the bees and the Baptistshttp://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/8828-the-birds-the-bees-and-the-baptists
http://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/8828-the-birds-the-bees-and-the-baptistsIn a sex-saturated society, do churches that consider conversations about human sexuality taboo run the risk of appearing irrelevant?

By Ken Camp

The fear of offending diverse church memberships understandably causes many pastors to shy away from open discussions about sexuality, said Christian ethicist David Gushee.

“I would fault churches for their silence on these issues, but having witnessed churches melt into horrible conflict over what ought to be solvable problems, I find it hard to fault pastors and other church leaders for not walking into this field full of landmines,” said Gushee, distinguished university professor of Christian ethics and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University.

Still, Gushee said, church leaders need to recognize their silence leaves a vacuum that is quickly filled by others. “What is not talked about on Sunday morning is instead addressed on Saturday night,” he said.

Jim Coston, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, recently preached a sermon series on the Old Testament Song of Songs about the joy of sex within marriage. The congregation responded favorably, and he offered a follow-up message on sex as “a gift from God — a blessing from God within the proper parameters.”

Coston said too often the church has presented sex “more as an accommodation to lust rather than an expression of love.”

“Sex within marriage is beautiful, the most personal act between two people,” he told the congregation. “It is fulfilling even as it makes vulnerable. It is a gift. It is a blessing. Within that context, it is good.”

Coston said the church has a good counterargument to prevailing views in society that treat sex solely as a gratification of one’s own desires and sometimes lacking any emotional content.

“The great societal irony is that in sexualizing so much, sex has lost its sanctity,” he said. “It is not viewed as special but seemingly as commonplace as meeting for a cup of coffee or trying on new clothes.”

Sometimes, cultural change forces churches to confront issues they might prefer to ignore. In the context of debate in the United Kingdom about same-sex marriage, British Baptist pastor Malcolm Duncan preached a widely disseminated sermon on sex.

“If we cannot talk about this here, then where exactly shall we?” Duncan asked in his sermon at Gold Hill Baptist Church in Chalfont St. Peter, Buckinghamshire.

Evangelicals who enter the fray on hot-button issues like gay marriage must recognize that in a post-sexual revolution society, traditional views about sex outside of marriage no longer hold moral sway.

“Sexual activity belongs within the confines of heterosexual, monogamous marriages; that should be the church’s position,” said Roger Olson, Foy Valentine professor of Christian theology and ethics at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. “But Christians need to become aware that we no longer own the culture.”

Olson said that singling out homosexuality as a special kind of evil is perceived “as simply stupid” by a pluralistic and secular culture, and crusades to “protect traditional marriage” only reinforce the widespread impression that evangelical Christians want to dictate and legislate morality for everyone else.

Gushee, lead organizer of a [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant co-sponsored by Mercer and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in 2012, said he sees “a weakening sense of moral clarity related to what exactly biblical sexual ethics” means in the 21st century, as well as social pressures that make marriage unattractive or even unattainable for some people.

“It is not just those with same-sex attraction who lack access to marriage in many parts of the country, but those in their 20s trying to get started in a depressed economy and those in their 70s trying to find love after the death or divorce of a spouse,” Gushee said. “The viability of the traditional Christian sexual ethic keeps eroding from all sides.”

Dan McGee, a Christian psychologist and board-certified clinical sexologist, said sexuality must be understood as “a much deeper mystery” than mere sexual behavior. Human sexuality is interwoven biologically, psychologically, socially and spiritually,” he said.

The complexity of human sexuality makes it particularly difficult for Christians to deal with the issue of homosexuality, said McGee, former director of Counseling and Psychological Services for the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

McGee sees Christians who support “reparative” or “conversion” therapy for homosexuals as sincere and well-meaning but ill-informed.

“It’s built on pseudo-science that says, ‘Homosexual orientation is caused by overprotective mothers and distant fathers, and we’re here to fix it,’” he said.

Even with the complex nature of human sexuality and shifting understandings of marriage, Baptist ministers, ethicists and mental-health professionals agree on the importance of fidelity and commitment. Gushee advocates what he calls a “covenant fidelity ethic.”

“Emphasizing the well-being of children, parents’ covenant obligations to children and their need for a stable, loving family in which to be raised would be an extremely important part of this ethic,” he said. “And in our culture of easy in/easy out relationships, teaching covenant fidelity to everyone would in fact be countercultural.”

]]>In a sex-saturated society, do churches that consider conversations about human sexuality taboo run the risk of appearing irrelevant?

By Ken Camp

The fear of offending diverse church memberships understandably causes many pastors to shy away from open discussions about sexuality, said Christian ethicist David Gushee.

“I would fault churches for their silence on these issues, but having witnessed churches melt into horrible conflict over what ought to be solvable problems, I find it hard to fault pastors and other church leaders for not walking into this field full of landmines,” said Gushee, distinguished university professor of Christian ethics and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University.

Still, Gushee said, church leaders need to recognize their silence leaves a vacuum that is quickly filled by others. “What is not talked about on Sunday morning is instead addressed on Saturday night,” he said.

Jim Coston, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, recently preached a sermon series on the Old Testament Song of Songs about the joy of sex within marriage. The congregation responded favorably, and he offered a follow-up message on sex as “a gift from God — a blessing from God within the proper parameters.”

Coston said too often the church has presented sex “more as an accommodation to lust rather than an expression of love.”

“Sex within marriage is beautiful, the most personal act between two people,” he told the congregation. “It is fulfilling even as it makes vulnerable. It is a gift. It is a blessing. Within that context, it is good.”

Coston said the church has a good counterargument to prevailing views in society that treat sex solely as a gratification of one’s own desires and sometimes lacking any emotional content.

“The great societal irony is that in sexualizing so much, sex has lost its sanctity,” he said. “It is not viewed as special but seemingly as commonplace as meeting for a cup of coffee or trying on new clothes.”

Sometimes, cultural change forces churches to confront issues they might prefer to ignore. In the context of debate in the United Kingdom about same-sex marriage, British Baptist pastor Malcolm Duncan preached a widely disseminated sermon on sex.

“If we cannot talk about this here, then where exactly shall we?” Duncan asked in his sermon at Gold Hill Baptist Church in Chalfont St. Peter, Buckinghamshire.

Evangelicals who enter the fray on hot-button issues like gay marriage must recognize that in a post-sexual revolution society, traditional views about sex outside of marriage no longer hold moral sway.

“Sexual activity belongs within the confines of heterosexual, monogamous marriages; that should be the church’s position,” said Roger Olson, Foy Valentine professor of Christian theology and ethics at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. “But Christians need to become aware that we no longer own the culture.”

Olson said that singling out homosexuality as a special kind of evil is perceived “as simply stupid” by a pluralistic and secular culture, and crusades to “protect traditional marriage” only reinforce the widespread impression that evangelical Christians want to dictate and legislate morality for everyone else.

Gushee, lead organizer of a [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant co-sponsored by Mercer and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in 2012, said he sees “a weakening sense of moral clarity related to what exactly biblical sexual ethics” means in the 21st century, as well as social pressures that make marriage unattractive or even unattainable for some people.

“It is not just those with same-sex attraction who lack access to marriage in many parts of the country, but those in their 20s trying to get started in a depressed economy and those in their 70s trying to find love after the death or divorce of a spouse,” Gushee said. “The viability of the traditional Christian sexual ethic keeps eroding from all sides.”

Dan McGee, a Christian psychologist and board-certified clinical sexologist, said sexuality must be understood as “a much deeper mystery” than mere sexual behavior. Human sexuality is interwoven biologically, psychologically, socially and spiritually,” he said.

The complexity of human sexuality makes it particularly difficult for Christians to deal with the issue of homosexuality, said McGee, former director of Counseling and Psychological Services for the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

McGee sees Christians who support “reparative” or “conversion” therapy for homosexuals as sincere and well-meaning but ill-informed.

“It’s built on pseudo-science that says, ‘Homosexual orientation is caused by overprotective mothers and distant fathers, and we’re here to fix it,’” he said.

Even with the complex nature of human sexuality and shifting understandings of marriage, Baptist ministers, ethicists and mental-health professionals agree on the importance of fidelity and commitment. Gushee advocates what he calls a “covenant fidelity ethic.”

“Emphasizing the well-being of children, parents’ covenant obligations to children and their need for a stable, loving family in which to be raised would be an extremely important part of this ethic,” he said. “And in our culture of easy in/easy out relationships, teaching covenant fidelity to everyone would in fact be countercultural.”

]]>Ken CampTheologyFri, 06 Sep 2013 13:09:37 -0400SBC ethicist addresses online pornhttp://baptistnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/8826-sbc-ethicist-addresses-on-online-porn
http://baptistnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/8826-sbc-ethicist-addresses-on-online-pornThe temple prostitutes warned against by the Apostle Paul are alive and well on the Internet, ERLC head Russell Moore tells students at Southwestern Seminary.

By Bob Allen

The temple prostitutes that tempted some in the New Testament church in Corinth have been “digitalized and weaponized” today in the form of Internet pornography, Southern Baptists’ top spokesman for moral concerns warned seminary students Sept. 5.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said in chapel at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that online porn brings an “illusion of anonymity” that the first-century pagan temple prostitutes could never promise.

“The strategies of Satan have become so crafty that they are able to promise a cover of darkness, including to ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, in a way that is able to communicate with alarming regularity ‘you shall not surely die,’” Moore said.

“As you are headed out into the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ, if you are not arming yourself right now to recognize what is happening with this demonic strain of sexual immorality, you are not going to be able to stand,” Moore said. “You are living in the kind of world in which there are digital harems of prostitutes, available and pushed upon every single population in the United States of America and increasingly every single population in the world.”

Moore said Internet porn promises the same thing the Apostle Paul confronted in First Corinthians 6 when he wrote: “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.”

“There is a promise that this is merely physical,” Moore said. “There is a promise that this is something that might not be moral, but the consequences can be navigated.”

Moore said in reality “what is happening is an act of idolatry.”

“There is every bit the act of worship in the pornography epidemic taking place in our churches as there is in those who are wandering into the lands and the houses of the temple prostitutes,” he said. “You cannot pretend that this will not utterly transform and destroy your ministry.”

Moore said pornography is an “especially dangerous form” of sexual sin because it brings with it a “sham repentance.”

“There are many of you who believe yourselves to be struggling with pornography, because after some incident with pornography takes place you promise yourself this is never going to happen again,” he said.

“Nobody loves pornography after a pornographic incident,” he counseled. “Even pagans see this as something kind of sad and pathetic and lonely.”

“Until you come to the place where you recognize and you know: ‘God have mercy upon me. Lord have mercy upon my helplessness in this situation’ -- until you run to the gospel and until you allow yourself to be spoken to and transformed by the word that Jesus is giving, that redirects your life, you are not experiencing repentance,” he warned. “You are not struggling with anything. You are being led by the satanic powers like an ox toward the slaughterhouse, step by step by step by step by step.”

Moore, who taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary before replacing Richard Land as head of the ERLC in June, also had advice for wives and future wives in the audience who will have husbands who are tempted toward Internet pornography.

“The answer for you is not to simply wring your hands,” Moore said. “His body belongs to you.”

“Your answer to this is not to simply suffer in silence,” Moore said. “Your answer to this is to raise the issue with your husband, and if your husband will not repent — Matthew 18 — you take this outside of your marriage to those within the community of Christ, all the way through, if necessary, to the congregation, in order to say the spiritual integrity of our marriage for the sake of the gospel is worth fighting for.”

Sexual immorality does not make a person sexy, Moore said, but rather pollutes and dilutes a healthy sex drive that makes it possible to experience intimacy in marriage.

“The sexless, pathetic marriages going on in our churches — including sometimes among 25- and 26-year-old newlyweds — is a testament to the promises of the devil in giving the illusion of intimacy in a way that only comes to kill and to destroy, with the promise of a glowing screen that rips to shreds,” he said.

For some people, Moore said, true repentance might require they come to the point of throwing their computers away.

“People have lived for thousands of years without computers, and if what it means for you to cut your hand off or to gouge your eye out is to say, ‘I will have no digital technology around me,’” he said, “then that is exactly what you should do.”

]]>The temple prostitutes warned against by the Apostle Paul are alive and well on the Internet, ERLC head Russell Moore tells students at Southwestern Seminary.

By Bob Allen

The temple prostitutes that tempted some in the New Testament church in Corinth have been “digitalized and weaponized” today in the form of Internet pornography, Southern Baptists’ top spokesman for moral concerns warned seminary students Sept. 5.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said in chapel at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that online porn brings an “illusion of anonymity” that the first-century pagan temple prostitutes could never promise.

“The strategies of Satan have become so crafty that they are able to promise a cover of darkness, including to ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, in a way that is able to communicate with alarming regularity ‘you shall not surely die,’” Moore said.

“As you are headed out into the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ, if you are not arming yourself right now to recognize what is happening with this demonic strain of sexual immorality, you are not going to be able to stand,” Moore said. “You are living in the kind of world in which there are digital harems of prostitutes, available and pushed upon every single population in the United States of America and increasingly every single population in the world.”

Moore said Internet porn promises the same thing the Apostle Paul confronted in First Corinthians 6 when he wrote: “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.”

“There is a promise that this is merely physical,” Moore said. “There is a promise that this is something that might not be moral, but the consequences can be navigated.”

Moore said in reality “what is happening is an act of idolatry.”

“There is every bit the act of worship in the pornography epidemic taking place in our churches as there is in those who are wandering into the lands and the houses of the temple prostitutes,” he said. “You cannot pretend that this will not utterly transform and destroy your ministry.”

Moore said pornography is an “especially dangerous form” of sexual sin because it brings with it a “sham repentance.”

“There are many of you who believe yourselves to be struggling with pornography, because after some incident with pornography takes place you promise yourself this is never going to happen again,” he said.

“Nobody loves pornography after a pornographic incident,” he counseled. “Even pagans see this as something kind of sad and pathetic and lonely.”

“Until you come to the place where you recognize and you know: ‘God have mercy upon me. Lord have mercy upon my helplessness in this situation’ -- until you run to the gospel and until you allow yourself to be spoken to and transformed by the word that Jesus is giving, that redirects your life, you are not experiencing repentance,” he warned. “You are not struggling with anything. You are being led by the satanic powers like an ox toward the slaughterhouse, step by step by step by step by step.”

Moore, who taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary before replacing Richard Land as head of the ERLC in June, also had advice for wives and future wives in the audience who will have husbands who are tempted toward Internet pornography.

“The answer for you is not to simply wring your hands,” Moore said. “His body belongs to you.”

“Your answer to this is not to simply suffer in silence,” Moore said. “Your answer to this is to raise the issue with your husband, and if your husband will not repent — Matthew 18 — you take this outside of your marriage to those within the community of Christ, all the way through, if necessary, to the congregation, in order to say the spiritual integrity of our marriage for the sake of the gospel is worth fighting for.”

Sexual immorality does not make a person sexy, Moore said, but rather pollutes and dilutes a healthy sex drive that makes it possible to experience intimacy in marriage.

“The sexless, pathetic marriages going on in our churches — including sometimes among 25- and 26-year-old newlyweds — is a testament to the promises of the devil in giving the illusion of intimacy in a way that only comes to kill and to destroy, with the promise of a glowing screen that rips to shreds,” he said.

For some people, Moore said, true repentance might require they come to the point of throwing their computers away.

“People have lived for thousands of years without computers, and if what it means for you to cut your hand off or to gouge your eye out is to say, ‘I will have no digital technology around me,’” he said, “then that is exactly what you should do.”

]]>Bob AllenOrganizationsFri, 06 Sep 2013 11:14:08 -0400Marriage in the New Testamenthttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8257-marriage-in-the-new-testament
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8257-marriage-in-the-new-testamentDespite all the talk today about “biblical marriage,” the New Testament actually presents singleness as a preferable state.

By Miguel De La Torre

The concept of marriage in which women were relegated to property evolved from the Hebrew Bible by the time we get to the New Testament. The New Testament discouraged marriage, placing it secondary to a life of singleness and celibacy.

The celibate was considered holier and closer to God. Paul wrote, “The one given in marriage does well, but the one not given in marriage does better” (1 Co. 7:38). In fact, Jesus declared, “It is better not to marry” (Mt. 19:10).

Familial ties were not as important as being a follower of Christ, where the prerequisite for discipleship was to “hate one’s father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Lk. 14:26).

To be a true Christian came to be understood as permanent celibacy, for abstinence was an outward expression of an inward freedom from the corruptible flesh. Marriage, according to Paul, was for those overwrought with sexual desires and unable to submit the flesh to the spirit by living a celibate life.

“But if they lack self-control,” Paul advised, “let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed” (1 Co. 7:9). According to Paul, “It is better for a man and a woman not to touch, but because of fornication, let each have his own wife and each her own husband” (1 Co. 7:1-2).

In fairness, these anti-marriage sentiments were probably due to the belief that Christ’s return was imminent. Why distract oneself with marriage and the worldly concerns a family generates when the end of the world was at hand (1 Co. 7:29-34)? Marriage was for those not “spiritual” enough to control their sexual appetites in order to spread the good news of Christ’s impending return.

While the Hebrew Bible saw women as property, the New Testament saw them as incubators. The early shapers of Christian thought believed that the only purpose for a woman’s existence was her ability to procreate.

Augustine went so far as to claim that it would have been better if God had placed another man in the garden with Adam instead of a woman (the original Adam and Steve?), because another man would have made a more suitable companion. Because of the need for procreation, God instead created Eve (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IX: 5:9).

Only through childbearing could a woman be saved, a disturbing understanding of salvation as reiterated by Paul: “It was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing” (1 Ti 2:14-15).

Paul, the promoter of salvation solely through grace and not by works, actually implies that unlike men, women are saved through childbearing: a concept rooted in patriarchy.

An underlining assumption found throughout the New Testament is that men are physically and morally superior to women. According to 1 Peter, “husbands must treat their wives with consideration, bestowing honor on her as one who, though she may be the weaker vessel, is truly a co-heir to the grace of life” (3:7).

Although equal in grace, the purpose for the woman as the “weaker vessel” is to be ruled by the man. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul insisted that women must cover their heads because the woman is the “glory of man.”

“For man ... is the image and glory of God,” he wrote specifically. “But the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. And man was not created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Co. 11:7-9).

Because man is closer to the spirit, he is a rational subject ordained to rule. And because woman is closer to the flesh, she is an emotional object ordained to be ruled. Thus, subjecting woman to man becomes the natural manifestation of subjecting passion to reason.

Paul made this view obvious when he wrote, “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also are wives to be subject to their husbands in everything” (Ep. 5:24). Just as the body must submit to the spirit, which is superior, and the church must submit to Christ, so too must the wife submit to her husband.

Ephesians (along with Colossians 3:18-19) set up the marriage relationship in which husbands are commanded to love their wives, while wives are commanded not to love, but submit to, their husbands. Marriage became an arrangement where the man found a person to satisfy his sexual desires, keep his household clean and in order and provide him with legitimate heirs.

Thank God we are moving away from such “traditional biblical marriages.” The challenge before us now is to move beyond the mythology created upon what we hope and think the biblical text says and what it actually says.

Only then, can this thing we call marriage continue to evolve toward a more liberating, justice-based relationship that frees us from the hierarchical and patriarchal arrangement we have for centuries justified through the Bible.

]]>Despite all the talk today about “biblical marriage,” the New Testament actually presents singleness as a preferable state.

By Miguel De La Torre

The concept of marriage in which women were relegated to property evolved from the Hebrew Bible by the time we get to the New Testament. The New Testament discouraged marriage, placing it secondary to a life of singleness and celibacy.

The celibate was considered holier and closer to God. Paul wrote, “The one given in marriage does well, but the one not given in marriage does better” (1 Co. 7:38). In fact, Jesus declared, “It is better not to marry” (Mt. 19:10).

Familial ties were not as important as being a follower of Christ, where the prerequisite for discipleship was to “hate one’s father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Lk. 14:26).

To be a true Christian came to be understood as permanent celibacy, for abstinence was an outward expression of an inward freedom from the corruptible flesh. Marriage, according to Paul, was for those overwrought with sexual desires and unable to submit the flesh to the spirit by living a celibate life.

“But if they lack self-control,” Paul advised, “let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed” (1 Co. 7:9). According to Paul, “It is better for a man and a woman not to touch, but because of fornication, let each have his own wife and each her own husband” (1 Co. 7:1-2).

In fairness, these anti-marriage sentiments were probably due to the belief that Christ’s return was imminent. Why distract oneself with marriage and the worldly concerns a family generates when the end of the world was at hand (1 Co. 7:29-34)? Marriage was for those not “spiritual” enough to control their sexual appetites in order to spread the good news of Christ’s impending return.

While the Hebrew Bible saw women as property, the New Testament saw them as incubators. The early shapers of Christian thought believed that the only purpose for a woman’s existence was her ability to procreate.

Augustine went so far as to claim that it would have been better if God had placed another man in the garden with Adam instead of a woman (the original Adam and Steve?), because another man would have made a more suitable companion. Because of the need for procreation, God instead created Eve (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IX: 5:9).

Only through childbearing could a woman be saved, a disturbing understanding of salvation as reiterated by Paul: “It was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing” (1 Ti 2:14-15).

Paul, the promoter of salvation solely through grace and not by works, actually implies that unlike men, women are saved through childbearing: a concept rooted in patriarchy.

An underlining assumption found throughout the New Testament is that men are physically and morally superior to women. According to 1 Peter, “husbands must treat their wives with consideration, bestowing honor on her as one who, though she may be the weaker vessel, is truly a co-heir to the grace of life” (3:7).

Although equal in grace, the purpose for the woman as the “weaker vessel” is to be ruled by the man. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul insisted that women must cover their heads because the woman is the “glory of man.”

“For man ... is the image and glory of God,” he wrote specifically. “But the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. And man was not created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Co. 11:7-9).

Because man is closer to the spirit, he is a rational subject ordained to rule. And because woman is closer to the flesh, she is an emotional object ordained to be ruled. Thus, subjecting woman to man becomes the natural manifestation of subjecting passion to reason.

Paul made this view obvious when he wrote, “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also are wives to be subject to their husbands in everything” (Ep. 5:24). Just as the body must submit to the spirit, which is superior, and the church must submit to Christ, so too must the wife submit to her husband.

Ephesians (along with Colossians 3:18-19) set up the marriage relationship in which husbands are commanded to love their wives, while wives are commanded not to love, but submit to, their husbands. Marriage became an arrangement where the man found a person to satisfy his sexual desires, keep his household clean and in order and provide him with legitimate heirs.

Thank God we are moving away from such “traditional biblical marriages.” The challenge before us now is to move beyond the mythology created upon what we hope and think the biblical text says and what it actually says.

Only then, can this thing we call marriage continue to evolve toward a more liberating, justice-based relationship that frees us from the hierarchical and patriarchal arrangement we have for centuries justified through the Bible.

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesWed, 27 Feb 2013 12:05:54 -0500‘Biblical’ marriage unmaskedhttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8209-‘biblical’-marriage-unmasked
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8209-‘biblical’-marriage-unmaskedThose who claim the biblical model for marriage is one man and one woman for life apparently haven’t been reading the Bible.

By Miguel De La Torre

Many Christians today speak about the traditional biblical marriage, but if truth be known, the traditional marriage is not a biblical concept. In fact, it would be hard to find a modern-day Christian who would actually abide by a truly biblical marriage in practice, as the biblical understanding of marriage meant male ownership of women who existed for sexual pleasure.

Upon marriage, a woman’s property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.

A woman became available for men’s possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11 to 13 years old), that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.

Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men. The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women’s status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow.

Her dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, wife, slave, ox or donkey” (Ex. 20:17).

Because women are excluded from being the subject of this command, the woman -- like a house, slave, ox or donkey -- is reduced to an object: just another possession, another piece of property that belonged to the man, and thus should not be coveted by another man.

There are many ways in which the Bible cannot be a literal reference point or guidebook to modern-day marriages. Because the biblical understanding of the purpose for marriage has been reproduction, marriage could be dissolved by the man if his wife failed to bear his heirs.

Besides reproduction, marriage within a patriarchal order also served political and economic means. Marriages during antiquity mainly focused on codifying economic responsibilities and obligations.

Little attention was paid to how the couple felt about each other. Wives were chosen from good families not only to secure the legitimacy of a man’s children, but to strengthen political and economic alliances between families, clans, tribes and kingdoms. To ensure that any offspring were the legitimate heirs, the woman was restricted to just one sex partner, her husband.

Biblical marriages were endogamous -- that is, they occurred within the same extended family or clan -- unlike the modern Western concept of exogamous, where unions occur between outsiders.

Men could have as many sexual partners as they could afford. The great patriarchs of the faith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, had multiple wives and/or concubines, and delighted themselves with the occasional prostitute (Gen. 38:15). King Solomon alone was recorded to have had over 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

The book of Leviticus, in giving instructions to men wishing to own a harem, provides only one prohibition, which is not to “own” sisters (Lev. 18:18). The Hebrew Bible is clear that men could have multiple sex partners. Wives ensured legitimate heirs; all other sex partners existed for the pleasures of the flesh.

A woman, on the other hand, was limited to just one sex partner who ruled over her -- unless, of course, she was a prostitute.

Biblical marriage was considered valid only if the bride was a virgin. If she was not, then she needed to be executed (Dt. 22:13-21).

Marriages could only take place if the spouses were believers (Ezra 9:12). And if the husband were to die before having children, then his brother was required to marry the widow. If he refused, he had to forfeit one of his sandals, be spit on by the widow, and change his name to “House of the Unshoed” (Dt. 25:5-10).

As much as we do not want to admit it, marriage is an evolving institution; a social construct that has been changing for the better since biblical times. Those who claim that the biblical model for marriage is one husband and one wife apparently haven’t read the Bible or examined the well-documented sources describing life in antiquity.

The sooner we move away from the myth of the so-called traditional biblical marriage, the better prepared we will be to discuss what constitutes a family in the 21st century.

]]>Those who claim the biblical model for marriage is one man and one woman for life apparently haven’t been reading the Bible.

By Miguel De La Torre

Many Christians today speak about the traditional biblical marriage, but if truth be known, the traditional marriage is not a biblical concept. In fact, it would be hard to find a modern-day Christian who would actually abide by a truly biblical marriage in practice, as the biblical understanding of marriage meant male ownership of women who existed for sexual pleasure.

Upon marriage, a woman’s property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.

A woman became available for men’s possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11 to 13 years old), that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.

Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men. The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women’s status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow.

Her dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, wife, slave, ox or donkey” (Ex. 20:17).

Because women are excluded from being the subject of this command, the woman -- like a house, slave, ox or donkey -- is reduced to an object: just another possession, another piece of property that belonged to the man, and thus should not be coveted by another man.

There are many ways in which the Bible cannot be a literal reference point or guidebook to modern-day marriages. Because the biblical understanding of the purpose for marriage has been reproduction, marriage could be dissolved by the man if his wife failed to bear his heirs.

Besides reproduction, marriage within a patriarchal order also served political and economic means. Marriages during antiquity mainly focused on codifying economic responsibilities and obligations.

Little attention was paid to how the couple felt about each other. Wives were chosen from good families not only to secure the legitimacy of a man’s children, but to strengthen political and economic alliances between families, clans, tribes and kingdoms. To ensure that any offspring were the legitimate heirs, the woman was restricted to just one sex partner, her husband.

Biblical marriages were endogamous -- that is, they occurred within the same extended family or clan -- unlike the modern Western concept of exogamous, where unions occur between outsiders.

Men could have as many sexual partners as they could afford. The great patriarchs of the faith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, had multiple wives and/or concubines, and delighted themselves with the occasional prostitute (Gen. 38:15). King Solomon alone was recorded to have had over 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

The book of Leviticus, in giving instructions to men wishing to own a harem, provides only one prohibition, which is not to “own” sisters (Lev. 18:18). The Hebrew Bible is clear that men could have multiple sex partners. Wives ensured legitimate heirs; all other sex partners existed for the pleasures of the flesh.

A woman, on the other hand, was limited to just one sex partner who ruled over her -- unless, of course, she was a prostitute.

Biblical marriage was considered valid only if the bride was a virgin. If she was not, then she needed to be executed (Dt. 22:13-21).

Marriages could only take place if the spouses were believers (Ezra 9:12). And if the husband were to die before having children, then his brother was required to marry the widow. If he refused, he had to forfeit one of his sandals, be spit on by the widow, and change his name to “House of the Unshoed” (Dt. 25:5-10).

As much as we do not want to admit it, marriage is an evolving institution; a social construct that has been changing for the better since biblical times. Those who claim that the biblical model for marriage is one husband and one wife apparently haven’t read the Bible or examined the well-documented sources describing life in antiquity.

The sooner we move away from the myth of the so-called traditional biblical marriage, the better prepared we will be to discuss what constitutes a family in the 21st century.

Founders, participants say the faith-based abstinence program helps youth who wish to remain "pure" in a sexualized society.

By Jeff Brumley

Ryan Rouse, 33, credits a little piece of paper kept in his Bible for helping him remain a virgin until his wedding day in 2002.

“There were definitely times when temptation would start to factor in – girls and dates,” the Florida Baptist and former multi-sport athlete recalled. “I would keep that Bible in my car – to me that pledge card was a huge symbol.”

That commitment card came courtesy of True Love Waits, the LifeWay Christian Resources abstinence program first unveiled in Nashville in February 1993. It has since been adopted by churches and ministries of numerous denominations across the nation and globe.

“Our hope was to impact a few Southern Baptist churches,” Hester told ABPnews. “It got a whole lot bigger than we ever hoped it would.”

Looking back, Ross said that’s likely because many teens yearned for an alternative to the sexualized culture then addressed mainly by the safe-sex movement.

Condom demonstrations focusing on disease and pregnancy prevention alienated those young people who wanted and needed more support in remaining abstinent, said Ross, now a professor of student ministry and religious education at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

“That left young people thinking everyone around them must be sexually involved,” he said. “That was tremendously discouraging because they were feeling ‘I’m the strange one. I am the misfit.’”

That was the message Ross said he and Hester were hearing as they worked together on a Christian sex-education curriculum for LifeWay. Discussions about that concern led them eventually to draft a plan for what became True Love Waits, with the first group of 53 pledges being signed at Tulip Grove Baptist Church in Nashville, Tenn.

The way people embraced and took ownership of the program showed their hunger to make a promise of purity to Christ, and for a fellowship of like-minded adults and teens to provide the support needed to make it work, Ross said.

“I think teenagers who have identified themselves with a world-wide movement do experience a positive encouragement from peers to keep the promise,” Ross said.

Critics and skeptics have suggested peer pressure accounts for much of the program’s success, and that it alienates young people who do have sex before marriage.

Hester said it’s true that some teens may have signed commitment cards to go along with youth groups. “If you talk to students long enough, you hear that their parents were looking, or ‘I was doing it because my buddy did it,’” Hester said.

But there are many thousands more who say even those pressures were God-sent, or that True Love Waits gave them the social cover they needed to say no when it really mattered, Hester said.

“And yes there are those who don’t live it out,” he said. For those, the program has gone out of its way to teach that slips are opportunities to seek repentance and move on. “We produced ‘When True Love Doesn’t Wait.”

Hester also acknowledged that organizers do not have a count of commitment cards signed or statistics regarding how many teens make it to their wedding day as virgins.

It’s impossible to count because churches and other groups don’t always report when they are using True Love Waits or how many people have signed the cards. There has been no polling or other research to provide success rates.

“I would be interested to know that,” said Hester, who is now retired from LifeWay.

But what he does know is that he, Ross and others hear first- and second-hand stories of how the ministry has helped people around the world. Even adults are signing the cards and adopting a lifestyle of purity, Hester said.

“The only way I know it’s been successful is because of the continuing use of it and the testimonies of those saying ‘man, that blessed my life.’”

Rouse was 16 when he signed his commitment card at church in Spring Hill, Fla. It helped him not only with chastity but with the clarity he needed to hear his call into youth ministry.

And now Rouse uses the True Love Waits program with the youth he mentors as pastor to students at Kathleen Baptist Church in Lakeland, Fla. His own success with True Love Waits gives him credibility in pitching to today’s youth, he said.

“It helps me prove you can be pure.”

]]>

Founders, participants say the faith-based abstinence program helps youth who wish to remain "pure" in a sexualized society.

By Jeff Brumley

Ryan Rouse, 33, credits a little piece of paper kept in his Bible for helping him remain a virgin until his wedding day in 2002.

“There were definitely times when temptation would start to factor in – girls and dates,” the Florida Baptist and former multi-sport athlete recalled. “I would keep that Bible in my car – to me that pledge card was a huge symbol.”

That commitment card came courtesy of True Love Waits, the LifeWay Christian Resources abstinence program first unveiled in Nashville in February 1993. It has since been adopted by churches and ministries of numerous denominations across the nation and globe.

“Our hope was to impact a few Southern Baptist churches,” Hester told ABPnews. “It got a whole lot bigger than we ever hoped it would.”

Looking back, Ross said that’s likely because many teens yearned for an alternative to the sexualized culture then addressed mainly by the safe-sex movement.

Condom demonstrations focusing on disease and pregnancy prevention alienated those young people who wanted and needed more support in remaining abstinent, said Ross, now a professor of student ministry and religious education at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

“That left young people thinking everyone around them must be sexually involved,” he said. “That was tremendously discouraging because they were feeling ‘I’m the strange one. I am the misfit.’”

That was the message Ross said he and Hester were hearing as they worked together on a Christian sex-education curriculum for LifeWay. Discussions about that concern led them eventually to draft a plan for what became True Love Waits, with the first group of 53 pledges being signed at Tulip Grove Baptist Church in Nashville, Tenn.

The way people embraced and took ownership of the program showed their hunger to make a promise of purity to Christ, and for a fellowship of like-minded adults and teens to provide the support needed to make it work, Ross said.

“I think teenagers who have identified themselves with a world-wide movement do experience a positive encouragement from peers to keep the promise,” Ross said.

Critics and skeptics have suggested peer pressure accounts for much of the program’s success, and that it alienates young people who do have sex before marriage.

Hester said it’s true that some teens may have signed commitment cards to go along with youth groups. “If you talk to students long enough, you hear that their parents were looking, or ‘I was doing it because my buddy did it,’” Hester said.

But there are many thousands more who say even those pressures were God-sent, or that True Love Waits gave them the social cover they needed to say no when it really mattered, Hester said.

“And yes there are those who don’t live it out,” he said. For those, the program has gone out of its way to teach that slips are opportunities to seek repentance and move on. “We produced ‘When True Love Doesn’t Wait.”

Hester also acknowledged that organizers do not have a count of commitment cards signed or statistics regarding how many teens make it to their wedding day as virgins.

It’s impossible to count because churches and other groups don’t always report when they are using True Love Waits or how many people have signed the cards. There has been no polling or other research to provide success rates.

“I would be interested to know that,” said Hester, who is now retired from LifeWay.

But what he does know is that he, Ross and others hear first- and second-hand stories of how the ministry has helped people around the world. Even adults are signing the cards and adopting a lifestyle of purity, Hester said.

“The only way I know it’s been successful is because of the continuing use of it and the testimonies of those saying ‘man, that blessed my life.’”

Rouse was 16 when he signed his commitment card at church in Spring Hill, Fla. It helped him not only with chastity but with the clarity he needed to hear his call into youth ministry.

And now Rouse uses the True Love Waits program with the youth he mentors as pastor to students at Kathleen Baptist Church in Lakeland, Fla. His own success with True Love Waits gives him credibility in pitching to today’s youth, he said.